Mill And Immanuel Kant Analysis

J. S. Mill and Immanuel Kant each believe that there is only one clear option when faced with a predicament that could cause suffering to other individuals, although what they believe to be morally right is not what you would immediately think to be morally right. According to these philosophers, there are occasionally situations where the morally right obligation may not seem clear, because there is still suffering involved. Both Mill and Kant believe that morally conflicting situations can be resolved by following a distinct idea to choose a path with the least amount of suffering involved to either the other people involved in the situation or the deciders moral soul. While Mill states that you should consider the end of a situation, Kant believes that you should follow a strict idea of universal laws to determine your means to the end. Their views may differ, but they both come together on the idea that moral dilemmas can be solved by applying ideas that can be shared universally.
In a situation where Jim is given the choice to die with twenty
This is the basis of the principle of utility, or the greatest happiness principle. As seen in the YouTube videos about Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is the idea that you should always choose the option that creates the most happiness even if it means killing someone. This set of laws were determined to help create a clear idea of how one should proceed while facing a moral dilemma. “When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to.” (Mill, 3) Assuming that everyone’s happiness is worth the same amount, you are able to look at the situation as numbers instead of as human lives. If twenty out of twenty-one people live, those are considered better numbers than twenty one